DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A-2, B-1, and C-1 in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 – 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 20, 2026.
Examiner notes that Applicant expressly indicated, in the reply filed on May 20, 2026, that claim 1 is the only claim which is either generic or encompasses the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a table” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer the “lift table” previously set forth in the preamble of the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘table’ which is separate and independent from the ‘lift table’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the preamble of the claim as “a lifting mechanism comprising:”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the table is lifted and lowered according to a relative position ...” in the seventh paragraph of the body of the claim. Examiner notes that the preamble of the claim is directed towards “a lifting mechanism for lift table” Therefore, it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to positively require a step of ‘lifting and lowering the table,’ such that the claim is directed towards a ‘method of lifting and lowering a lift table via a lifting mechanism,’ or whether Applicant intends the limitation to recite functional language of the ‘table,’ such that claim to be directed towards the ‘lifting mechanism.’
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the corresponding cam or the inclined portion” in the eighth paragraph of the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “a remaining of the cam or inclined portion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cormack (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0103277).
As to claim 1, Cormack teaches a lifting mechanism (abstract) comprising: a base being bottom of the lifting mechanism (figures 4 – 6, element 60 being the ‘base’; paragraph 58); a table (figures 4 – 6, element 40 being the ‘table’; paragraph 58); a lifting unit configured to lift up and lower the table, the lifting unit being a cam structure, the lifting unit including a first inclined portion and a cam portion (figures 4 – 6, elements 120 and 83 being the ‘lifting unit,’ element 120 being the ‘first inclined portion’ and element 83 being the ‘cam portion’; paragraphs 60 – 62); a pedestal (figures 4 – 6, element 112 being the “pedestal”; paragraph 60). Examiner notes that “pedestal” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a support or base of a structure.” Because Cormack expressly teaches that the “actuator rod” (element 112) is connected to, and supports, the first inclined portion (element 120), the ‘actuator rod’ of Cormack may reasonably be considered a “pedestal” (figures 4 – 6, elements 112 and 120; paragraph 60); a drive configured to move the pedestal in a horizontal direction (figures 4 – 6, element 110 being the ‘drive’; paragraphs 60 and 62); a regulator configured to restrict a movement of the table in the horizontal direction (figures 4 – 6, elements 20 and 30 being the ‘regulator’; paragraph 58), wherein the table is configured to be lifted and lowered according to a relative position between an inclined surface of the first inclined portion and the cam portion (figures 4 – 6, element 122 being the ‘inclined surface’ and elements 120 and 83; paragraphs 60 – 62), the first inclined portion is located at a bottom of the table (figures 4 – 6, elements 83 and 40), and the inclined portion is located at the pedestal (figures 4 – 6, elements 120 and 112; paragraph 60), and the relative position between the inclined surface of the first inclined portion and the cam portion is changed by a movement of the pedestal in the horizontal direction (figures 4 – 6, elements 122, 120, 83, and 122; paragraphs 60 – 62).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights